Seattle City Light worker who blew whistle on whiskey ‘gifts’ loses out

Judge tosses out judgment against city, fine against instructor who took gallons of liquor

BY LEVI PULKKINEN, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Updated 8:55 am, Friday, June 27, 2014

Photo: Seattle Muncipal Archives

Image 1of/6

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 6

A Seattle City Light sign atop a South Seattle service center, visitble from the West Seattle Freeway.

A Seattle City Light sign atop a South Seattle service center, visitble from the West Seattle Freeway.

Photo: Seattle Muncipal Archives

Image 2 of 6

Seattle City Light lineworkers install power lines atop utility poles along 15th Ave. West, north of the Magnolia Bridge ramps, in Seattle.

Seattle City Light lineworkers install power lines atop utility poles along 15th Ave. West, north of the Magnolia Bridge ramps, in Seattle.

Photo: Dan DeLong, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Image 3 of 6

Jorge Carrasco, Seattle City Light CEO, made news earlier this month due to a large salary increase approved by the City Council. As of July 1, he'll be paid $305,000, making him the highest paid Seattle public employee by far. less

Jorge Carrasco, Seattle City Light CEO, made news earlier this month due to a large salary increase approved by the City Council. As of July 1, he'll be paid $305,000, making him the highest paid Seattle public ... more

Photo: Joshua Trujillo, P-I File

Image 4 of 6

Seattle City Light workers work to replace a transformer bank in Lake Forest Park during a storm response.

Seattle City Light workers work to replace a transformer bank in Lake Forest Park during a storm response.

Photo: Karen Ducey, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Image 5 of 6

A lineworker from Seattle City Light replaces a transformer bank that was blown down during a storm.

A lineworker from Seattle City Light replaces a transformer bank that was blown down during a storm.

Photo: Karen Ducey/Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Image 6 of 6

Seattle City Light employees work on a utility pole at West Galer Street and Elliott Avenue West in Seattle.

Seattle City Light employees work on a utility pole at West Galer Street and Elliott Avenue West in Seattle.

Photo: Phil H. Webber, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Seattle City Light worker who blew whistle on whiskey ‘gifts’ loses out

1 / 6

Back to Gallery

Life didn’t get easier for Seattle City Light apprentice Aaron Swanson after he reported his instructor for accepting 4½ gallons of whiskey from linemen in training who had failed a test.

Swanson was already having a rough time in City Light’s lineworker apprenticeship program. But he saw his path to a career as a lineworker blocked by the instructor he’d reported to authorities for requesting liquor from his students.

Swanson’s picture and the word “rat” were printed on a poster that was hung at his jobsite. He was invited to brawl. Someone impersonated him online, authoring a self-mocking apology to the “union brother” he’d outed for the boozy bribe.

Swanson’s instructor, journeyman lineworker Ron Allen, wound up taking a 20-day suspension for accepting nine handles of Jack Daniels and Jameson whiskey from the apprentices. They’d failed an unofficial – and almost certainly fake – oral exam before the whiskey gift; after Allen got the liquor, they all passed.

Allen, whose uncle is the director of the City Light lineworkers’ union unit, was nominated for the City of Seattle board overseeing all apprenticeship programs in the city government. Allen’s uncle delivered the nomination to the Mayor’s Office as Allen was being punished for accepting the liquor.

Interviewed by a city ethics board, Allen described the liquor incident as a joke and was angry he was being investigated for it.

“This is the way we roll,” Allen told investigators.

Ostracized by coworkers, Swanson claimed he’d been retaliated against for shining the light on his superior’s misdeeds.

An administrative law judge agreed, fined Allen $1,000 and ordered the city to pay Swanson’s attorneys. In a recent decision, though, a King County Superior Court judge tossed out that ruling while agreeing that Allen likely prompted at least some of the harassment.

Booze dispute sets apprentice against mentor

A graduate of Oregon State University, Swanson was among a small cohort of apprentices hoping to secure the steady work and exceptional pay afforded City Light lineworkers.

The tough, dangerous work of maintaining Seattle’s electrical grid falls to lineworkers, who are expected to climb poles and string wire at all hours and in all weather. Despite the risks, there are more applicants than apprentice positions, in part because of the high pay and job security that come with the union work.

“The lineworker apprenticeship at City Light is very competitive because an apprenticeship can take someone with a high school education and provide them with a trade that can command a six-figure income,” Assistant City Attorney Katrina Kelly said in court papers.

Base pay for a City Light journeyman lineworker is $88,500 a year, though the actual amount earned by lineworkers is usually much higher due to overtime pay. A starting apprentice is paid a base rate of $57,500 a year, or $27.54 an hour; by comparison, the starting pay rate for an assistant city attorney is $30.11.

Paid for their work, apprentices undergo at least 6,000 hours of training during the program, which usually lasts three years. Every six months, apprentices are considered for advancement to the next phase of the program; advancement means more pay and more complex work, and marks a step forward toward journeyman status.

Apprentices who fail to advance are held at a “step” for six months and reviewed again by a board comprised of union leaders and city managers. The board can revoke failing apprentices’ apprenticeships, ending their chances at becoming lineworkers; mentors also encourage struggling students to apply for work elsewhere in City Light.

Swanson started his apprenticeship in 2009, a year before Allen was made a lead instructor. At the time, Allen was also serving on a committee tasked with evaluating apprentices.

In August 2010, Allen told his students he’d conduct an oral exam on state worker safety rules. The test – apparently a pop quiz – wasn’t part of the curriculum, and appears to have been something of a farce. Accounts of what followed varied slightly.

According to Swanson and city investigators, Allen held one-on-one meetings with his nine apprentices, asked each vague questions and then told each he or she had failed.

“Okay, guys, you did bad, but I’ll give you another shot at it,” Allen told the group after the exam, according to court records. “We’ll do it again Friday. And when you – when we do it again Friday, you probably want to bring something with you.”

“Like a bottle of Jack?” one apprentice asked.

“Or Jameson,” Allen responded.

That night, each apprentice bought a half-gallon bottle of either Jack Daniels or Jameson whiskey. Swanson forgot, but other apprentices covered for him while one went to a liquor store and bought a bottle.

Swanson walked into the trailer that served as Allen’s office to find the liquor bottles lining the man’s desk. He was given the test – Allen took no notes on his answers – and a passing grade, like the rest of the liquor-bearing apprentices.

Testifying before administrative law Judge Lisa Dublin more than two years later, Allen denied suggesting that apprentices bring him liquor. Dublin wasn’t persuaded – she found Allen likely told the apprentices a bottle of liquor would help their scores on the test, which was not part of the apprentice curriculum.

“The weight of evidence, including multiple investigative reports regarding the incident, confirm that Mr. Allen both solicited and accepted alcohol as an incentive for giving apprentices a passing score on an unauthorized oral exam,” Dublin said in her September 2013 ruling.

At any rate, no one disputed that the apprentices delivered gallons of liquor to Allen, nor did anyone claim Allen refused the gifts before giving each a passing grade on the test. He apparently boxed the whiskey and took it away.

Job in jeopardy, lineman complains

Swanson claimed his trouble began after Allen learned he’d forgotten to bring a bottle to the test. In a claim disputed by Allen, Swanson contended Allen launched a campaign of harassment against him.

Throughout his conflict with the apprentice, Allen held positions of authority with City Light and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the union representing City Light lineworkers.

A month after he collected the liquor, Allen was promoted to lead instructor for testing, training and curriculum development for City Light apprentice lineworkers. Currently a crew chief, he served on a subcommittee overseeing city-paid electrical workers.

Then as now, his uncle, Joe Simpson, served as IBEW Local 77’s business representative for City of Seattle members, including the City Light lineworkers. Even after Allen was suspended for the liquor incident, Simpson nominated his nephew for a spot on a key city committee evaluating all apprentices working for Seattle.

City Light didn’t advance Allen’s name to the Mayor’s Office for appointment to the board. Nonetheless, Allen was allowed to sit in on hearings it held, including Swanson’s review.

Contacted for comment Thursday, City Light spokesman Scott Thomsen said Allen no longer has a role with the apprenticeship program.

Early in his apprenticeship, Swanson was somewhere in the middle of the pack. Evaluators praised him in some areas while faulting him in others.

A typical review saw Swanson lauded for his “good attitude” and willingness to learn, and criticized for his pole climbing. A year before the liquor incident, another described Swanson as a “solid worker” progressing well.

Things changed for Swanson after the forced liquor donation, attorney Jack Sheridan said in court papers.

His supervisor suggested he drop out of the apprenticeship program and become a clerk, a position that would deny Swanson the high pay and perks that come with line work. Swanson confronted Allen a week after he was told to quit. Allen told him he didn’t care what Swanson thought was “fair.”

Swanson became convinced that Allen was out to get him because he hadn’t bought a bottle of whiskey like the rest of the apprentices. His fears proved correct; a City Light investigator found Allen had been lobbying others to grade Swanson poorly so he could be kicked out of the apprenticeship program.

Swanson was called before a supervisory board on which Allen sat in March 2011. At Allen’s suggestion, the advisory board extended Swanson’s apprenticeship six months, slowing his progress toward journeyman status.

“In the months that followed, there was no meaningful training,” Sheridan said in court papers. “Swanson’s performance evaluations became progressively worse and his treatment by crews deteriorated into a hostile work environment.”

A second meeting of the advisory committee saw its members recommend Swanson’s apprenticeship be canceled. Such a move would essentially end his career with City Light.

Having kept mum about the liquor incident, Swanson went to City Light’s human resources department and reported it after his apprenticeship was put in jeopardy. He also reported it to the state and to a union-city apprenticeship board.

Swanson’s complaint prompted an investigation into the liquor incident, which concluded in March 2012. Simpson gave his nephew a copy of Swanson’s complaint.

Allen was found to have accepted the liquor and suspended for 20 days but retained his job. Meanwhile, the electrical workers committee on which Allen then sat recommended Swanson be held back again; the city apprenticeship board rejected that recommendation and advanced him.

The administrative law judge’s report made clear that several of Swanson’s mentors saw promise in the apprentice, and took pride in teaching others their trade. She found that much of the criticism Swanson faced was legitimate; one crew chief who suggested remedial training for the apprentice noted he’d received the same himself and was thankful for it.

Attorney: ‘Bullying’ never stopped

Swanson crossed paths with Allen shortly after being transferred to City Light’s South Service Center in Seattle’s Industrial District. Allen was apparently irate over the city’s decision to move Swanson despite restrictions in the IBEW contract with the city.

“You’re just a (expletive) squeak,” Allen told Swanson, according to Dublin’s ruling. “You can’t just decide to show up down South!”

Allen was later overheard explaining to his brother – also a City Light lineworker – and others on a loading dock that Swanson wouldn’t be around long, according to the administrative judge’s decision.

“Don’t worry,” Allen told his colleagues, “we’ll take care of him hook, line and sinker.”

Writing the court, Sheridan, a Seattle attorney specializing in whistleblower lawsuits, said the harassment of his client never abated even after Swanson complained.

A crew chief who saw Swanson being treated unfairly later described the situation during an administrative court hearing.

The crew chief went on to say that Allen had “groupies” and was allowed to influence the city-owned utility in inappropriate ways.

Some of the harassment was less subtle. It took the form of a poster showing a photo of Swanson over the word “rat,” of a junior lineworker sticker stuck to his locker, and a faked apology on Seattletimes.com.

“Hi my name is Arron Swanson I was the one that brought all this up to save my job,” the imposter wrote, misspelling Swanson’s first name. “I have not been doing well here at the city and this is my way of proving a point and saving my job that I might not have for much longer. I am saddened for what I have done to my union brother but it is already done.”

After that November 2012 incident, a City Light worker took photos of text messages Swanson had exchanged with a colleague about The Seattle Times report. Those photos were sent to Simpson, who forwarded them to City Light human resources investigators; they were apparently used during an investigation into Swanson and his colleague, also described as a whistleblower.

Writing the court, Sheridan said the city failed to protect Swanson from harassment conducted at Allen’s direction.

“Allen was a bully who abused his authority, and that behavior continued throughout this case and throughout the hearing,” Sheridan told the court. “There is no evidence that Allen’s lobbying efforts or his bullying tactics ever stopped.”

Investigation into union hall fight stymied

While Swanson reported most of the incidents to management, each was investigated separately by City Light human resources. No one inside City Light had a full view of the problem, Sheridan said, except Swanson.

A City Light investigation that concluded in February 2013 found that workers were unwilling to cooperate with investigators, particularly if union officials were present during the interviews. The investigator found that Allen lobbied Swanson’s superiors to rate him poorly in retaliation for Swanson’s complaints about the liquor incident.

Sheridan contended the City Light-run investigations were simply a smokescreen meant to hide the utility’s culpability in Swanson’s treatment after he complained of misconduct. The utility continues to deny that retaliation occurred.

The myriad investigations did not improve relations between Swanson and Allen. During a July 2012 union meeting, Allen called Swanson a “piece of shit” and asked him to step outside to fight.

City Light attempted to investigate the incident but was rebuffed by Allen’s uncle.

“What happens at a union meeting is none of SCL’s business,” Simpson said in an email to a City Light human resources manager. “SCL needs to stop pretending that the problems that they have with apprentices now, in the past, and probably in the future does not rest at the Union Hall but just down the hall at the apprenticeship office.

“I am not willing to spend the members money on silly investigations every time the apprenticeship office talks a apprentice into ‘crying wolf.’”

Neither the union nor Allen’s attorneys returned requests for comment.

In September, Dublin ruled in Swanson’s favor following eight days of hearings spread across much of 2013. Relying largely on the comment posted to the newspaper website, the administrative law judge found City Light had retaliated against Swanson for complaining.

“Mr. Allen is a competent lineworker and longtime (City Light) employee, who worked for years training future generations of lineworkers,” Dublin said in her decision. “However, rather than working with Mr. Swanson to get him the resources he needed to improve quicker, Mr. Allen encouraged Mr. Swanson to drop out.”

Dublin described the impersonation of Swanson online as an “undoubtedly hostile action” that Allen “either vocally or tacitly encouraged, if not performed himself.” She fined Allen $1,000, recommended he be suspended for six months and ordered the city to pay Swanson’s costs, which amounted to about $127,000.

All that was undone this month, though, when a King County Superior Court judge found several flaws in Dublin’s decision.

Fine, judgment tossed out

Following Dublin’s decision, Swanson, Allen and the city each filed lawsuits appealing portions of her ruling.

Part of the executive branch of government, administrative judges such as Dublin are appointed and hear disputes involving city or state code ranging from land use issues to licensing complaints. Administrative law judges' decisions can be – and often are – brought to judicial branch courts when parties don’t like the outcome.

In Allen’s defense, his attorneys contended the pressure he put on others to drive down Swanson’s scores failed – Swanson kept his job. City Light made a similar claim, asserting that Allen’s “lobbying efforts” didn’t impact Swanson’s grades.

Objecting to Dublin’s decision, Allen’s attorneys also said there was no evidence to support the judge’s conclusion that Allen had anything to do with the comment posted online under Swanson’s name. Attorneys for the city made a similar point, largely because that single incident provided the basis for Dublin’s order that the city pay Swanson’s costs.

No witnesses corroborated suspicions that Allen was behind the comment. Kelly, the assistant city attorney representing Seattle in the matter, said Dublin’s decision “is far too speculative to meet the standard of persuading a fair-minded person that it is true Mr. Allen encouraged another City Light employee to post the comment.”

Ruling last week, King County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell agreed with the administrative law judge on the substance, finding it likely that Allen or someone else with City Light impersonated Swanson online.

“It is clear that the individual who posted the comment had ‘insider’ information not known to the general public and was aligned with Mr. Allen,” Ramsdell said in his June 18 ruling. “Given the historical context and Mr. Allen’s prior dealings with Mr. Swanson, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the poster was a City Light insider who was encouraged to act by … Mr. Allen.”

But Ramsdell went on to find that the impersonation of Swanson didn’t violate the city code meant to stop retaliation against whistleblowers. The administrative judge erred by applying state law instead of city code, Ramsdell ruled, and reversed the award of attorneys’ fees to Swanson.

Ramsdell also struck down the fine. All parties agreed that Allen wasn’t given a chance to defend himself and should not have faced a fine.

The decision effectively vacated Dublin’s ruling. It was not immediately clear whether Swanson would pursue an appeal.

CORRECTION: Seattle City Light spokesman Scott Thomsen's name was mispelled in an earlier version of this story.